DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
I. Introduction
This reprisal case, brought under Section 405 of the Congressional Accountability Act (“the CAA”) (2 U.S.C. §1405), is before the Board pursuant to the Complainant Employee’s petition for review of the Hearing Officer’s dismissal of the complaint on the pleadings. The issue on appeal is whether the alleged Respondent Employer action, denying Complainant’s request to inspect two merit promotion vacancy files in reprisal for the Complainant’s prior exercise of his rights under the CAA, stated an actionable claim of reprisal. The Complainant requested those files in connection with his pending earlier discrimination complaint before another Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer in this matter, ruling from the bench, concluded that the alleged Respondent action was not encompassed by the Act’s anti-reprisal provision (Section 207 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C.§1317). The Hearing Officer also concluded that the earlier case Hearing Officer’s discovery ruling precluded a collateral challenge to that action in this subsequent case.
While we affirm the Hearing Officer’s dismissal of the Complaint, we do so solely on the basis that sound policy and judicial economy dictate that the Complainant pursue his discovery connected claim in the earlier Office of Compliance proceeding in which it arose. In the particular facts of this case, we hold that the Architect’s denial of Complainant’s document request, requiring him to obtain it in the discovery process, does not create an independent retaliation claim. We do not adopt the Hearing Officer’s interpretation regarding the protective scope of Section 207 of the CAA (“Section 207″), nor do we decide whether the subject denial of merit promotion files could constitute an actionable retaliation claim if it occurred outside of the CAA dispute resolution process. We reserve ruling on these questions until an appropriate case arises in the future.
II. Statement of the Case
A. Background
The Complainant, in connection with his earlier age discrimination complaint before the Office of Compliance, requested from the Respondent (“the Architect”) inspection of two vacancy merit promotion files (“the Files”).
